How Positive and Negative Outcomes Affect Members...
49
How Positive and Negative Outcomes Affect Members’ Satisfaction in Social Network Communities: A Regulatory Focus Theory Perspective University of Oulu Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering Department of Information Processing Science Master’s Thesis Jiao Huang (2303792) 16.05.2014
Transcript of How Positive and Negative Outcomes Affect Members...
How Positive and Negative Outcomes Affect Members’ Satisfaction in Social Network
Communities: A Regulatory Focus Theory Perspective
University of Oulu
Faculty of Information Technology and
Electrical Engineering
Department of Information Processing
Science
Master’s Thesis
Jiao Huang (2303792)
16.05.2014
2
Abstract
Based on interests and topics, different communities are created within social network
platforms. Community members discuss questions, share information, and help others
solve problems. Some social network communities are very successful and have
attracted a lot of members, whereas other social network communities cannot sustain
because members are not satisfied and leave. The current study investigates the factors
associating with user’s satisfaction in the social network communities. Regulatory focus
theory is used to frame the investigation. Based on regulatory focus theory, vanity,
disinhibition, enjoyment, bridging social capital are proposed as promotion-focused
goals, while privacy concern and risk aversion are categorised as prevention-focused
goals. The research model is tested with the data collected from online questionnaire.
Results suggest that individuals’ satisfaction increases when they feel disinhibited,
obtain enjoyment, and gain bridging social capital in social network communities. The
fulfilment of vanity is not regarded as a significant source of satisfaction in social
network communities. This study has important contributions to literature and
implications for practice.
Keywords Vanity, disinhibition, risk aversion, satisfaction, regulatory focus theory, self-
discrepancy theory, social network community.
3
Foreword
This thesis was written for my Master degree in the University of Oulu. The subject was
suggested by my supervisor, Li Zhao. He is an assistant professor in the Department of
Information Processing Science.
I would like to thank my supervisor for his great help during the development of this
thesis. He proposed good suggestions in solving problems, and gave me a lot of
encouragements. He not only provided guidance about how to write this thesis, but also
taught me how to do good research. I benefited a lot. Without his support and help, this
thesis would not be possible.
I would also like to show my gratitude to all the anonymous respondents of the
questionnaire. The data collected from them gave support to my study.
Jiao Huang
Oulu, May 16, 2014
4
Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 2 Foreword ........................................................................................................................... 3
Contents ............................................................................................................................ 4 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Previous studies ................................................................................................... 6 1.2 The current study ................................................................................................. 6
2 Theoretical Foundations ............................................................................................... 8
2.1 Regulatory focus theory ....................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Basic elements of regulatory focus theory ............................................... 8 2.1.2 Real life examples .................................................................................. 10
2.1.3 Seek for positive outcomes and avoid negative outcomes in social
network communities ............................................................................. 11 2.2 Self-discrepancy theory ..................................................................................... 11
2.2.1 The self ................................................................................................... 11
2.2.2 Self-discrepancy ..................................................................................... 12 2.2.3 Virtual identity in social network communities ..................................... 13
3 Research Model and Hypotheses ............................................................................... 15 3.1 Vanity ................................................................................................................ 16 3.2 Disinhibition ...................................................................................................... 17
3.3 Enjoyment .......................................................................................................... 19 3.4 Bridging social capital ....................................................................................... 20
3.5 Privacy concern .................................................................................................. 21 3.6 Risk aversion ...................................................................................................... 22
4 Research Methodology ............................................................................................... 23 4.1 Measurement development ................................................................................ 23
4.2 Pilot study .......................................................................................................... 24 4.3 Research site ...................................................................................................... 28
4.4 Data collection ................................................................................................... 29 4.4.1 Sampling method .................................................................................... 29 4.4.2 Sample demographic .............................................................................. 30
5 Results ........................................................................................................................ 32 5.1 Measurement model ........................................................................................... 32
5.2 Structural model ................................................................................................. 35 6 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 37
6.1 Contributions to literature .................................................................................. 37 6.2 Implications for practice .................................................................................... 38 6.3 Limitations and future research ......................................................................... 38
7 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 39 References ....................................................................................................................... 40
Appendix A Questionnaire .............................................................................................. 47
5
1 Introduction
With the amazing development of the Internet, people can communicate with others
through various channels. Social network platform is definitely one of the most
important computer-mediated techniques for daily communication. It permeates deeply
into the daily life of people (Lin & Lu, 2011). Social network platforms were defined as
“web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public
profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they
share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made
by others within the system” (Boyd & Ellison, 2012).
Different social network platforms were established with different goals. For example,
LinkedIn mainly focuses on work-related contexts; Myspace aims to connect people
who share the same interests, such as music or politics; the original goal of Facebook
was to link college students together. With social network platforms (e.g., Tencent QQ,
Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn), individuals are able to express themselves, share
information with their friends, build or maintain relationships with others, and manage
their social networks. People can not only contact with the friends they already know in
physical world, but also meet new friends online. Social network platforms enable users
to maintain existing social network, and develop new relationships with others. (Lin &
Lu, 2011)
Social network platforms extend rapidly in recent years. More and more people are
involved in different social network sites. According to a new eMarketer report,
Worldwide Social Network Users: 2013 Forecast and Comparative Estimates, the
number of social network users will reach 1.97 billion by the end of 2014, which means
nearly one in four people will be using social networks, and the number will keep
growing (eMarketer, 2013). Moreover, 71.1% of internet users around the world will
use a social network at least once per month by 2014. This rate will rise to more than
three out of four internet users by 2016 (eMarketer, 2013).
Apart from these worldwide growths, specific successful examples of social network
platforms can also be found, such as Facebook and Tencent QQ (referred as QQ for
short in following text). As the leading force of social network sites, Facebook
developed rapidly in the past few years. Established less than one decade, the active
users of Facebook surpassed 1 billion in the third quarter of 2012. And by the fourth
quarter of 2013, the monthly active users of Facebook reached 1.23 billion, with a
growth of 23 percent over last year; 945 million of them were also active on mobile
devices (Statista, 2014). Recently, a report from a social media agency indicated that, at
the beginning of 2014, Facebook occupied the dominating position, and QQ followed
up tightly (with approximately 816 million monthly active users) (WeAreSocial
Singapore, 2014).
As social network platforms became increasingly popular, different communities are
created within these social network platforms. Members of the social network platforms
can join the communities based on their interests (Ho & Pan, 2010). They can join
discussions, participated in community activities and meet new friends who have shared
language with them. The social network community can be regarded as the glue that
sticks a group of members in the social network platform together. However, some
6
social network communities are very successful and have attracted a lot of members,
while other social network communities cannot sustain because members are not
satisfied. Given that participation in a social network community is voluntary and open,
an individual can leave if s/he is not satisfied with this social network community. An
important question then arises: what are the factors influencing members’ satisfaction in
a social network community? This is the research question of the current study.
1.1 Previous studies
Many studies have explored people’s satisfaction in online communities and social
network sites. For example, the IS success model (Delone & Mclean, 2003) is
frequently adopted in prior studies. It is suggested that system quality, information
quality and service quality are significant predictors of user satisfaction and their
behavioral intention to use the online community (Lin & Lee, 2006). Users prefer online
communities with high level of reliability, high-quality information and good services.
Another important theory is the uses and gratifications theory (Blumler, 1979). It is
argued that the purposive value and entertainment value have positive effect on users’
satisfaction and affective commitment with the online community (Jin, Lee, & Cheung,
2010), and will affect their participation behavior (Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Pearo, 2004).
Purposive value derives from “accomplishing some pre-determined instrumental
purpose”, such as exchanging information and solving specific problems (Dholakia, et
al., 2004), and entertainment value derives from the fun and relaxation gained by
interacting and playing with others (Jin et al., 2010). Members who receive informative
and hedonic benefits in the online community tend to participate continuously. The
theory of network externalities (Katz & Shapiro, 1985) is also reasonable in predicting
user participation and satisfaction. Lin and Lu (2011) indicated that the number of
members, number of peers and perceived complementarity are important motivators of
social network site participation. They are positively associated with users’ perception
of usefulness and enjoyment towards social network sites. Individuals believe that the
degree of usefulness of a social network site will be higher if a great many of people are
involved in it or the complementary resources are adequate (e.g., various applications
and supporting tools) (Lin & Bhattacherjee, 2008). Moreover, the connections with peer
friends will make the interactions more interesting. Apart from the network externalities
mentioned by Lin and Lu (2011), it is suggested that perceived external prestige, which
refers to the public status and image of the social network site, and perceived
compatibility, which means whether the services provided by the social network site are
consistent and compatible with existing popular services, can affect a member’s
identification and satisfaction with a social network site (Chiu, Cheng, Huang, & Chen,
2013). Perceived critical mass, which reflects individuals’ perception of the
sustainability and future growth of the social network site, also positively influences
users’ perceived satisfaction and continuance intention (Ku, Chen, & Zhang, 2013).
1.2 The current study
This study focuses on members’ satisfaction in communities created within social
network platforms. Specifically, the current study aims to investigate the factors
influencing members’ satisfaction about the social network communities. Relative to the
extant literature, the current study is distinguished in the following respects. First, the
current study focuses on the anonymous characteristic of many members in social
network communities; in other words, many members re-create their online identity in
such communities to obtain positive outcomes and avoid negative outcomes. Second,
the current study uses the regulatory focus theory to frame the positive outcomes and
7
negative outcomes that affect members’ satisfaction with the social network community.
The regulatory focus theory has never been used in prior studies on social network
communities before.
The thesis is organized as follows. First, the theoretical foundation used to frame this
research is introduced. Then a research model is proposed and detailed hypotheses are
presented. Subsequently, the research methodology is described. The results of data
analysis are then reported, followed by the discussion of results, contribution and
limitations. The paper ends with a brief conclusion.
8
2 Theoretical Foundations
When people achieve their maximum goal (e.g., win the first prize in the 100 meter
race), they experience the presence of positive outcome; if the maximum goal is not
achieved, they experience the absence of positive outcome. On the other hand, when
people achieve their minimum goal (e.g., not being the last one the 100 meter race),
they experience the absence of negative outcome; if the minimum goal is not achieved,
they experience the presence of negative outcome (Brendl & Higgins, 1996). As noted
earlier, many members may re-create their online identity in social network
communities to obtain positive outcomes and avoid negative outcomes. Such positive
outcomes and negative outcomes can be framed using regulatory focus theory
(Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Higgins, 1997, 1998; Scholer & Higgins, 2008).
Regulatory focus theory is interested in the self-regulatory processes or systems for
individuals to align themselves with appropriate goals and standards, so as to seek for
positive outcomes and avoid negative ones (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Higgins, 1997;
Scholer & Higgins, 2008).
2.1 Regulatory focus theory
Typically, individuals are motivated to approach pleasure (or positive outcomes) and
avoid pain (or negative outcomes) (Higgins 1997). But there are differences in the
process through which individuals approach pleasure and avoid pain (Higgins 1997,
1998). Higgins proposed two distinct but coexisting self-regulatory processes or
systems: promotion-focused regulation and prevention-focused regulation. Regulatory
focus theory posits that individuals’ behaviors are motivated to bring themselves in line
with the goals and standards influenced by their promotion focus or prevention focus
(Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Higgins, 1997; Scholer & Higgins, 2008).
Within the first process – promotion-focused regulation, individuals try to seek for the
presence of positive outcomes (Scholer & Higgins, 2008; Brockner & Higgins, 2001).
For example, in social network communities, participants recreate their virtual identity
in order to talk freely (so called disinhibition). Also someone may pretend to be a
successful man so as to attract more strangers to talk to him. Within the second process
“prevention-focused regulation,” individuals try to seek for the absence of negative
outcomes (Scholer & Higgins, 2008; Brockner & Higgins, 2001). For instance, in social
network communities, some participants may recreate their virtual identity in order to
protect their privacy and avoid risks.
2.1.1 Basic elements of regulatory focus theory
Individual’s self-regulation consists of three factors which can be used to demonstrate
the differences between a promotion focus (approach pleasure) and a prevention focus
(avoid pain): i) the psychological situations which may affect people; ii) the needs that
people are motivated to fulfill; iii) the nature of the goal or standard that people are
seeking to accomplish or achieve (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Figure 1 interprets the
elements of the regulatory focus theory.
9
Figure 1. Regulatory focus theory (conceptualized from Higgins, 1997, 1998)
Psychological situations 2.1.1.1
Obviously, people’s behaviors can lead to different outcomes. There are two general
categories of outcomes, one is positive outcomes (e.g., gains), and the other is negative
outcomes (e.g., losses). For the people who are promotion-focused, they strive to
achieve personal goals and particularly seek for the presence of positive outcomes
(approach pleasure) (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Higgins, 1997, 1998). For example, in
a well-developed organization, the goal of an employee is to be promoted in the
organization. He will try his best to perform better to approach higher position.
Whereas, for the people who are prevention-focused, they strive to avoid the behaviors
that mismatch goals and particularly seek for the absence of negative outcomes (avoid
pain) (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Higgins, 1997, 1998). For example, in a downsized
organization, the goal of an employee is to be retained in the organization. He will do
anything that is necessary to avoid being fired (Brockner & Higgins, 2001).
Needs 2.1.1.2
Previous studies (e.g., Bowlby, 1969; Maslow, 1955; Rogers, 1960) have found that
people have many different needs, including growth, accomplishment, advancement,
safety, protection, and security. Drawing on regulatory focus theory, there are two
distinct self-regulatory systems for people to approach pleasure and avoid pain based on
different needs that people are motivated to fulfill (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Growth,
accomplishment, and advancement needs predominate for those who are promotion-
focused, whereas safety, protection, and security needs predominate for those who are
prevention-focused (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Higgins, 1997, 1998).
Goals/Standards 2.1.1.3
As Higgins (1983) mentioned in the introduction of self-discrepancy theory, the
combination of ideal self and ought self is people’s self-guides. In other words, part of
people’s beliefs comes from their ideal-self guide, which reflects their wishes, hopes,
and aspirations (e.g., a student who wishes to be the top one in his/her class or a doctor
intrinsically wants to heal as many patients as possible among the world). Other part of
people’s beliefs comes from their ought-self guide, which reflect duties, obligations, and
Human
Behaviors
Approach
Pleasure
Avoid
Pain
Satisfy nurturance needs: growth,
accomplishment, advancement
Goals reflecting wishes, hopes and
aspirations
The presence of positive outcomes
(gains)
The absence of negative outcomes
(losses)
Goals reflecting duties, obligations
and responsibilities
Satisfy security needs: safety,
protection, security
Promotion-
focused
regulation
Prevention-
focused
regulation
Regulatory
Focus Theory
10
responsibilities that people feel in the world (e.g., a student should try to finish all the
homework on time or a doctor should try their best when treating his/her patients). All
in all, people with a promotion focus are trying to obtain their goals or standards
associated with the ideal-self guide. People with a prevention focus are trying to obtain
their goals or standards associated with the ought-self guide (Brockner & Higgins,
2001; Higgins, 1997, 1998).
2.1.2 Real life examples
Higgins (1998) uses the following example (shown in Figure 2) to explain the two
distinct but co-existing self-regulatory systems: promotion-focused regulation and
prevention-focused regulation. There are two students: A and B. The student A is
promotion-focused, and the student B is prevention-focused. These two students share a
same goal which is making an A in a college course. For some students, have A in a
course could be their wishes, hopes, and aspirations. Moreover, some other students
may think that “as a student, I should try to make A in a course”. Thereby, for this goal,
student A, who is promotion-focused, may view it as an ideal that satisfies his/her need
for accomplishment and advancement. Student B, who is prevention-focused, may view
the goal as a way that fulfills his/her security need to avoid negative outcomes (e.g., a
low grade may cause maltreatment from family or teachers).
Figure 2. General example about achieving a goal in two distinct systems of regulatory focus system (Higgins, 1997, 1998).
In this case, the two students adopt different ways to achieve the goal. An eager way
was adopted by student A. He/she will read extra materials to reach the goal of an A.
Student B uses a vigilant way that he/she become more detail oriented and pay careful
attention to completing all of the course requirements. (Larsen & Buss, 2009)
Promotion-Focused
Student A
Envisions, success,
more eager, reads
extra material
Envisions, failure
because does not do
enough extra work
Does not achieve goal,
Experiences negative fit
Attains goal, Achieves
positive regulatory fit
Prevention-Focused
Student B
Does not follow
enough guidelines
for success
More vigilance,
adheres to course
requirements
Goal: Make an A in a college course
Two ways to achieve a goal
11
2.1.3 Seek for positive outcomes and avoid negative outcomes in social network communities
By joining social network communities, people can obtain various positive outcomes in
the communities. They can make new friends (i.e., the increase of bridging social
capital), get help from others, and have fun (i.e., enjoyment). Moreover, since members
in the social network communities are not familiar with each other, individuals can
glorify themselves by hiding their shortcomings and magnifying their merits. In so
doing, people are actually creating a virtual self (Ruyter & Conroy, 2002). They are
creating a new online identity which can bring them more positive outcomes, such as
being admired by others. When creating a new online identity, people can hide the
undesired characteristics and manipulate their personality and biography as they wish.
As a result of creating a new identity, some individuals may become anonymous in
social network communities. Anonymity liberates individuals from scrutiny (Williams,
1988). In anonymous environment, individuals feel freed from social evaluation and the
threats of punishment or retaliation (Pinsonneault & Heppel, 1997).
Some researchers regard the creation of virtual identity as the emancipation of the real-
world identity (Kim & Sherman, 2007). The re-created virtual identity doesn’t need to
be the same with one’s real identity in the physical world. By withholding or even
altering some real personal information, the individuals can take advantage of the
anonymity online. The virtual identity that differs from their physical identity releases
the individuals from the inhibition of the real-world social norms and social evaluation.
In this case, they are more likely to engage in behaviors that they would not engage in if
they are identifiable (Johnson & Miller, 1998), such as free self-expression. The virtual
identity that differs from people’s real-world identity also protects them from some
negative outcomes online, such as risks and privacy issues. Actually, the virtual identity
can be examined in-depth through self-discrepancy theory.
2.2 Self-discrepancy theory
In order to illustrate self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1983; Higgins, Klein, &
Strauman, 1985), the concept of self should be explained first. Identity, either online or
offline, is an important component of what we are. With identity, a certain part of the
self is known to others (Altheide, 2000).
2.2.1 The self
Many researchers have been interested in different aspects of self. Schouten (1991)
suggested that the self consists of individual’s cognitive understanding and affective
understanding about him/herself. Additionally, the self has also been defined as the
combination of various self-conceptions (Markus & Nurius, 1986), while the self-
conception refers to the ideas that individuals believe they are. Meanwhile, two co-
existing parts of self-conceptions were proposed, namely now selves and possible selves
(Markus & Nurius, 1986). Now self is the part of self that people present to others in
their real life. Possible self is the ideas in one’s mind about him/herself that are not yet
presented to others, such as the characteristics he/she wish to possess (Markus &
Nurius, 1986).
The now self is conceptualized as two “actual” selves: i) the self that people believe
they actually are; ii) the self that people trust that others (e.g., parents, and friends) think
they actually are (Wylie, 1979). Apart from these actual selves, there are also different
12
kinds of possible selves, such as the “spiritual” self and the “social” self. The spiritual
self refers to the self fits an individual’s own moral conscience and sensibility, while the
social self is the self that is approved by the highest social judge (James, 1948). Rogers
(1961) also distinguished between an individual’s own belief about the self he/she
would “ideally” to be and others’ belief about what the individual should or “ought” to
be. As a further elaboration of basic “superego” / “ego ideal” (Freud, 1961), superego is
defined as the representation of moral conscience, and defined ideal self as the
representation of hopes and goals (Schafer 1974). A social “ideal self” could be built up
by imagining what a “better I” would others expect (e.g., the person we look up to)
(Cooley 1992). Colby (1967) distinguished wish-beliefs from value-beliefs, such as “I
want to date with Lisa” and “I ought to take care of my younger sister”.
To reveal the interrelationships among the different aspects of the self, the self-
discrepancy theory provided a systematic framework, postulating three domains of the
self (Higgins, 1983; Higgins et al., 1985).
Domains of the self
The actual self represents the characteristics that oneself or others thinks an individual
possesses. It reflects the current state of an individual. The ideal self represents the
characteristics that oneself or others wish an individual to possess ideally. It reflects
someone’s hopes and aspirations. The ought self represents the characteristics that
oneself or others believes an individual should or ought to possess. It reflects someone’s
sense of duty, responsibility and obligations. (Higgins, 1983; Higgins et al., 1985)
An example could be used to better explain the difference between the three domains of
the self. For a woman who is currently a teacher, the identity of teacher is the actual self
that is perceived by herself and others. Her wish is to be a successful business woman.
The successful business woman is the ideal self from her point of view. And at the same
time, herself and others (e.g., her husband) believe that she should take care of the
children. Then, the responsible mother is the ought self she should be.
2.2.2 Self-discrepancy
The actual self composes an individual’s self-concept (Wylie, 1979), and ideal self and
ought self are typically regarded as self-guide, the standard for well-being and self-
evaluation (Higgins, Strauman, & Klein, 1986). Different people may possess different
self-guides: some people may use both ideal self and ought self as their self-guide, some
people may only use ought self as self-guide, whereas some others may only use ideal
self as self-guide (Higgins et al, 1985).
For an individual, however, it is likely that self-concept (actual self) and self-guides
(ideal self and ought self) are not consistent; in other words, different kind of
discrepancy may exist between the actual self and self-guides. These discrepancies will
lead to various psychological discomforts (Higgins et al, 1985). Greater discrepancy
will induce greater psychological discomforts (Higgins, 1983).
It is proposed in self-discrepancy theory that, in order to alleviate psychological
discomfort, individuals are oriented to align their self-concept (i.e., actual self) with the
self-guide (i.e., ideal self and/or ought self) (Higgins et al, 1985). The self-guide
promotes individuals’ actions (James, 1948). Therefore, if individuals can match their
self-guide in social network communities, they will feel motivated and satisfied when
participating in the community.
13
2.2.3 Virtual identity in social network communities
The creation of virtual identity could also be explained from the perspective of self-
discrepancy theory. Self-discrepancy theory is closely related to the above-mentioned
regulatory focus theory, given that both theories were proposed by the same author
(Higgins et al, 1985; Higgins, 1997, 1998). While regulatory focus theory provides a
framework for all the factors (i.e., positive outcomes and negative outcomes)
investigated in this study, self-discrepancy theory provides in-depth explanation for
each factor.
As Higgins et al. (1985) suggested, the actual self represents the current state of
individuals. It is the identity that people actually possess. Ideal self reflects hopes,
wishes and aspirations, while ought self reflects duties, responsibilities and obligations.
Since both ideal self and ought self provide important standards for self-evaluation, they
are adopted as self-guides (Higgins et al., 1986).
Individuals are motivated to develop their actual self towards their self-guide (Higgins
et al, 1985). On one hand, due to the restrain of social norms and the pressure of social
evaluation, individuals are pushed to behavior according to the ought-self guide. In this
process, they are prevention-focused, and are oriented to meet the goals in ought-self
guide (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Higgins, 1997, 1998), otherwise they may be blamed
and criticized by others. On the other hand, individuals are motivated to pursue their
dreams. In this process, they are promotion-focused. They seek for positive outcomes
and try to fulfill the goals in their ideal self (Scholer & Higgins, 2008; Brockner &
Higgins, 2001). However, it is difficult to match all the requirements of social norms
and it is also difficult to make all the dreams come true due to the constraints in the
physical world (e.g., insufficient personal ability, and lack of support). Thus, the self-
discrepancy exists. The gap between actual self and ought-self guide is the actual-ought
discrepancy, while the gap between actual self and ideal-self guide is the actual-ideal
discrepancy. The actual-ought discrepancy, which arises when an individual fails to
accomplish his own duty and responsibility or fails to meet the significant others’
beliefs of obligations, is linked to agitation-related emotions (e.g., apprehension,
nervousness). The actual-ideal discrepancy, which arises when an individual fails to
achieve his own goals or fails to meet the significant others’ hopes and wishes, is linked
to dejection-related emotions (e.g., disappointment, sadness). ( Higgins, 1983)
In the online environment, the absence of physical characteristics and anonymity allows
individuals to re-create a virtual identity that differs from their actual identity in the real
world. When compared to the physical world, there are less restrains online (e.g., less
rules and looser social norms). Therefore, the duty and responsibility of individuals are
less, and are easier to fulfill. Individuals only need to follow some very basic rules, such
as don’t spread rumors (this rule can also be vanished to some bad guys). In other words,
individuals’ ought-self guide decreases in online setting, and it is very easy to achieve
with virtual identities. That is to say the actual-ought discrepancy is getting less in the
re-created virtual identity. Additionally, individuals can easily achieve their goals,
hopes, and whishes by behaving ideally or fake personal information online. For
example, in social network communities, a person who is very shy in physical world
could express him/herself freely, and a poor guy can act as a millionaire in online
communications. Therefore, individuals could reduce the actual-ideal discrepancy
through virtual identity re-creation. Individuals can obtain different positive outcomes
with the re-created virtual identity, such as the freedom of disinhibition, and the
fulfilment of dreams and vanity.
14
With the decrease of both actual-ought discrepancy and actual-ideal discrepancy, the
overall self-discrepancy will decrease. Since the discrepancy between the actual self and
self-guide is positively associated with the psychological discomfort (Higgins, 1983),
the recreated virtual identity that reduces the self-discrepancy will alleviate the
psychological discomfort and make individuals more motivated and satisfied.
15
3 Research Model and Hypotheses
As noted above, regulatory focus theory posits that individuals’ behaviors are motivated
to bring themselves in line with the goals and standards (ideal-self guide or ought-self
guide) influenced by their promotion focus or prevention focus (Brockner & Higgins,
2001; Higgins, 1997; Scholer & Higgins, 2008). When people are engaged in a
promotion-focused regulation, their growth and development needs motivate them to
endeavor to bring themselves into alignment with their ideal selves (Higgins 1997); in
so doing, they experience the pleasure of a gain, such as the above mentioned vanity,
disinhibition, enjoyment, and social capital. In contrast, prevention-oriented regulation
is concerned with satisfying security needs (Scholer & Higgins, 2008) such as the
earlier-noted risk and privacy concern. When obtaining positive outcomes and being
isolated from negative outcomes, people generate the feeling of satisfaction (Higgins,
1998).
This thesis focuses on the positive outcomes an individual can gain and negative
outcomes s/he can avoid through re-creating his/her virtual identity in social network
communities, including the above-mentioned vanity, disinhibition, enjoyment, bridging
social capital, privacy concern and risk aversion. Actually, certain factors can
consequently bring other positive outcomes. For example, to fulfil the need of vanity, a
member may re-create a virtual identity (e.g., pretend to be a successful business man).
This successful virtual identity may facilitate the process of information seeking,
because other members may be more willing to help someone who is successful. The
bridging social capital also benefits members when gathering information (Lin, Cook, &
Burt, 2001). In addition, maintaining good relationships with other members can meet
peoples’ need for belongingness (i.e., being part of the community) (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995). However, to make the model parsimonious, only the above-mentioned
direct positive outcomes an individual can gain and negative outcomes s/he can avoid
through re-creating his/her virtual identity in social network communities are
incorporated into the research model (see Figure 3).
In addition, because risk aversion is a personal characteristic, it does reflect the context
of social network communities and will not change in different context. In essence,
people with the characteristic of risk aversion may try to avoid uncertain situations not
only in online environment, but also offline. Therefore, risk aversion is proposed to
have a direct relationship with privacy concern, but is not directly associated to user
satisfaction in social network communities. By contrast, privacy concern is salient
especially in online settings. Once the personal information is leak out, everyone on the
Internet can access to it and utilize the information in bad ways. Thus, a direct
relationship between privacy concern and satisfaction in social network communities is
proposed in the research model.
Each relationship depicted in the model is explained in more detail below, based on
regulatory focus theory and self-discrepancy theory.
16
Figure 3. Research model
3.1 Vanity
Netemeyer, Burton and Lichtenstein (1995) defined vanity as a multidimensional
construct. They distinguished vanity into two dimensions: physical vanity and
achievement vanity. Each dimension comprises two distinct components.
Physical vanity includes “an excessive concern for physical appearance, and/or a
positive (and perhaps inflated) view of one’s physical appearance” (Netemeyer et al.,
1995). Individuals with high level of physical vanity pay a lot of attention to their
physical appearance. They spend a lot of money on appearance-related products, such as
cosmetic and clothing (Solomon, 1992). They try to increase their attractiveness by
improving their physical appearance. The attentions and praises from others could fulfil
the individuals’ vanity, making them feel satisfied.
People with high levels of achievement vanity have “an excessive concern for, and/or a
positive (and perhaps inflated) view of one's personal achievements" (Netemeyer et al.,
1995). It was suggested that, for female college students, apart from the physical
appearance, personal achievement also plays an important role in determine whether a
persona is welcomed by others or not (Krebs & Adinolfi, 1975). This indicates that a
female who is more attractive than other peers tend to show more needs in achievements.
Some individuals with high level of achievement vanity would consume in conspicuous
way to demonstrate and justify their achievements (Belk, 1985), such as buy a new
house or a new expensive car. In this way, others would regard them as successful
person, because materialism is a symbol of achievement (Richins & Dawson, 1992).
Prevention-focused
Promotion-focused
Satisfaction
Vanity
Disinhibition
Risk Aversion
Bridging
Social Capital
Enjoyment
Privacy
Concern
Anonymity
H1a
H2a
H3a
H4a
H5a H1b H2b H3b
H4b
H5b
H6
17
However, it is difficult for ordinary people to fulfil their physical and achievement
vanity in real life. Not everyone is satisfied with his/her physical appearance, and it will
take a lot of time and money (e.g., lose weight, and buy different clothes) to make the
physical appearance satisfying. It is also not easy to become successful in career, or gain
great achievements. But on the Internet, where the communication is mostly text-based,
others’ impressions on a person are mostly based on what the person discloses (Suler,
2005). People can embellish themselves with an ideal virtual identity.
In interest-based social network communities, many members are strangers. They are
not familiar with others’ background. This makes it possible for members to re-create a
virtual identity that is partly or totally different from their physical identity without
being recognized by others. For people with high level of vanity, they are promotion-
focused (Higgins, 1997, 1998), and they want to fulfill their goals in ideal-self guide to
meet their need of vanity. To make sure the goals are achieved, they are oriented to
construct more “ideal-self” in the virtual identity and behave ideally, trying to improve
their personal image. With the re-created virtual identity, they can hide the unsatisfying
characters in their real identity, and present the characteristics they dreamed of. To
improve the physical appearance, a weak man can pretend to be strong by sharing some
pictures of muscle man, and tell others that is him. He can also act as successful
business man or powerful leaders, and so on. With the increase of “ideal self”, the
actual-ideal discrepancy decreases, thereby improving individuals’ psychological
comfort (Higgins et al., 1985) and making them satisfied. Such a virtual identity is
welcomed by others, because most people prefer outstanding persons to normal ones.
The re-created virtual identity reduces individuals’ self-discrepancy, fulfills their needs,
and attracts more attention from others. All these will make the individuals more
motivated to use the re-created virtual identity, and feel satisfied when interacting with
others in the social network community. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H1a: Vanity is positively associated with an individual’s satisfaction in participating in
the social network community.
H1b. Anonymity (achieved by identity re-creation) will moderate the effect of vanity on
social network community satisfaction, such that the effect will be stronger among
people with higher degree of anonymity.
3.2 Disinhibition
In addition to vanity, disinhibition online may also be related to people’s perception of
satisfaction in social network communities.
Disinhibition is a state in which people don’t or only weakly care about others’ attitude
towards their actions (Van den Bos et al., 2011). When people are disinhibited, they
seek for sensation and externalize tendencies and problems (Iacono, Carlson,Taylor,
Elkins, & McGue, 1999). It is easier for people to follow their personal inclinations
when they feel disinhibited (Van den Bos et al., 2011).
In the online setting (such as social network communities), people feel loosen up, less
restrained and express themselves in more open way. They say and do things that they
won’t say and do in the physical world. Suler (2005) defined this phenomenon as the
online disinhibition effect. Six factors that lead to online disinhibition effect have been
defined, namely dissociative anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity, solipsistic
introjection, dissociative imagination, minimization of status and authority (Suler, 2005).
18
The anonymous environment on the Internet provides people the opportunity to separate
their online actions from their identity in the physical world. They feel less vulnerable
when interacting with others, because their behavior online can’t be directly linked to
their lives offline. Apart from this, the physical invisibility also amplifies the effect of
disinhibition. In online communications, people don’t need to worry about their
appearance when they type in front of the computer. They are also free from eye contact.
The disapproval signs from others (e.g., a shaking head, a frown, a bored expression or
a sigh) would inhibit what people express. Getting rid of the disapproval emotions of
others facilitates people to express themselves more freely. Another factor that leads to
online disinhibition effect is asynchronicity which means people don’t have to interact
with others in real time. They can reply after minutes, hours, or even days. By contrast,
they also don’t need to cope with others’ immediate reactions towards their behavior.
They can even run away after posting a personal, emotional or hostile message. (Suler,
2005)
The solipsistic introjection is due to the absence of visual and verbal cues. People read
others’ message with their own voice within their mind, creating imaginary characters
for others. When this is combined with dissociative imagination, people feel that their
online persona and the imaginary characters of others live in a different dimension that
is separated with the physical world. The rules and norms of online life are different,
and they can’t be applied to daily life in the physical world. Thus, they dissociate the
online interactions from offline life. Once they are offline, they can leave the online life
and online identity behind, along with responsibilities for online affairs. (Suler, 2005)
When facing an authority (e.g., someone in higher position), people are inhibited to
express what they really think. They are afraid of being disapproved or punished. But in
online environment, the effect of status and authority is minimized. Previous research
indicated that computer-mediated communication would reduce inequality only when
the members have equal access to the means of communication and the right to
communicate freely without status constraints (i.e. censorship) (Herring, 1995). People
get together and form peer relationship. Those who have lower status in physical world
are freed from their social roles. Everybody has the equal chance to express themselves.
Regardless of authority, status, race, or gender, people are much more likely to speak
out and misbehave. (Suler, 2005)
All the above mentioned factors that lead to online disinhibition effect are present in
social network communities. The anonymous environment increases equality among
members. It is the same interest that connects them together. There is no other direct
links between them in daily life. They can quit the community if they are not interested
any more. The members are less restrained and can express whatever in their mind.
For people who want to take advantage of the online disinhibition effect, their goal is to
release themselves from the inhibitions of the physical world and enjoy the freedom
online. The restrains of rules and social norms in virtual setting are not as tight as in the
physical world. For those who want to enjoy the online disinhibition, they are
promotion-focused (Higgins, 1997, 1998), and they are oriented to release themselves to
the greatest extent. To amplify the effect of online disinhibition effect, some individuals
choose to re-create a virtual identity that is different from the physical identity and hide
their real information to avoid punishment. They may take even less rules and social
norms as their ought-self guide online. This means that the ought-self guide online
decreases, making it easier to be fulfilled with a virtual identity. Therefore, the actual-
ought discrepancy in the virtual identity decreases, increasing individuals’
psychological comfort when using this virtual identity (Higgins et al., 1985).
19
Consequently, people tend to feel more satisfied when communicating with others in the
social network community. Then, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H2a: Disinhibition is positively associated with an individual’s satisfaction in
participating in the social network community.
H2b. Anonymity (achieved by identity re-creation) will moderate the effect of
disinhibition on social network community satisfaction, such that the effect will be
stronger among people with higher degree of anonymity.
3.3 Enjoyment
Additionally, enjoyment is another important factor that may relate to individuals’
satisfaction in social network communities. Enjoyment was generally conceptualized as
the sense of pleasure obtained from media product consumption (Raney, 2003). It is a
pleasurable response to entertainment media. Zillmann and Vorderer (2000) believed
that enjoyment is solely associated with hedonic needs, which means humans are mere
pleasure seekers. Hedonic use means that the original intention of using the information
system is to pursuit emotional value, such as enjoyment and happiness, not instrumental
value (Van der Heijden, 2004). In addition to pleasure seeking, enjoyment is also
defined as the fulfillment of psychological needs (Ryan, Rigby, & Przybylski,
2006).Thus the enjoyment aspect focuses on the pleasure individuals obtain from
information systems, as well as fulfilling people’s psychological needs.
It is argued that perceived enjoyment is significant in the usage of pleasure-oriented
information system, and the interest-based social network community can be regarded
as pleasure-oriented, because its original purpose is to gather people who share the same
interest together, and have fun together. People become more willing to use it when they
find it interesting and attractive (Lin & Lu, 2011). Researchers also found that
enjoyment was positively associated with user satisfaction in social network services.
Moreover, enjoyment was proved to positively affect users’ attitude toward websites
and the willingness to visit the site frequently. (Cyr, Head, & Ivanov, 2009) The effect
of enjoyment may also apply to the context of social network communities where users
can gain pleasure and fulfill their needs by interacting with others.
Additionally, as indicated in self-discrepancy theory, greater discrepancy between the
actual self and self-guide will lead to greater psychological discomfort, such as
disappointment and nervousness (Higgins et al., 1985). The, in contrast, when self-
discrepancy decreases, the individuals’ psychological comfort will increase, generating
positive feelings, such as enjoyment. When their goal is to obtain more pleasure,
individuals are promotion-focused (Higgins, 1997, 1998). They are motivated to re-
create a virtual identity that could reduce the self-discrepancy and fulfil their
psychological needs. Thus, individuals can gain more enjoyment with identity re-
creation. Moreover, the social interactivity is proved to have greater effects on users'
satisfaction when compared to machine interactivity (Cyr et al., 2009). Using a virtual
identity that is different from the physical identity will bring individuals different new
experiences, hence, increase the enjoyment they obtain in the social interactions and
increase their satisfaction. Thus, the enjoyment that individuals obtain in re-creating
virtual identity and subsequent social interactions with the re-created virtual identity
may be associated to their perceptions of satisfaction in the social network community.
This leads to the following hypothesis:
20
H3a: Enjoyment is positively associated with an individual’s satisfaction in
participating in the social network community.
H3b. Anonymity (achieved by identity re-creation) will moderate the effect of
enjoyment on social network community satisfaction, such that the effect will be
stronger among people with higher degree of anonymity.
3.4 Bridging social capital
Many people join social network communities to make new friends, so that the
importance of bridging social capital can’t be ignored. Bridging social capital is a set of
resources that are embedded in external ties. External ties are the connections out of a
collectivity. (Adler & Kwon, 2002) Internal cohesive and close emotional relationships
are usually not found in bridging social capital. The connections in bridging social
capital are loose and weak. (Granovetter, 1982) According to Woolcock (1998) bridging
social capital, which refers to the relationships established between people who are
different (e.g., have different backgrounds) and don’t know each other before, is good
for gathering information and gaining access to external resources.
Putnam (1995) also suggested that social capital enables people to solve problems more
easily. It is found that social capital facilitates the development of community (Putnam,
1995). When people in the same community maintain close relationship and interact
frequently, things go more smoothly and become enjoyable. Moreover, social capital is
also suggested to facilitate information exchange and knowledge sharing (Adler &
Kwon, 2002). Social networks could benefit the dissemination of helpful information
(Putnam, 1995). People who are better connected to others usually receive news faster.
Better access to information contributes to their personal achievements.
In social network communities, members are connected by the same interest. The shared
language and interest will facilitate the communication and people’s access to each
other (Brown & Duguid, 1991), making it easier for community members to build social
connections between each other. The members in the social network community come
from different places and have different backgrounds. Therefore, in the social network
community, people are able to make friends that are different from their friends in the
real world and increase the quantity of their relationships. As a consequence, their
bridging social capital increases, enabling them to gather different information. They
can further develop these connections into bonding social capital, and build trust and
reciprocity with other members, so that they could derive various benefits from the
actual and virtual resources embedded in the durable network they possess, such as easy
access to knowledge (Bourdieu, 1986). The increase of social capital would benefit the
individuals in different aspects, making them satisfied in the interactions. Individuals
are promotion-focused when they aim to increase their bridging social capital in the
social network community. Re-creating an attractive identity can help them to achieve
the goal more easily. Therefore, people may construct an identity according to the ideal-
self guide, making the re-created virtual identity more charming, so that they can attract
others to make friends with them. In this way, individuals’ bridging social capital
increases, and they may feel more satisfied with the social network community, because
they can obtain informative benefits. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H4a: Bridging social capital is positively associated with an individual’s satisfaction in
participating in the social network community.
21
H4b. Anonymity (achieved by identity re-creation) will moderate the effect of bridging
social capital on social network community satisfaction, such that the effect will be
stronger among people with higher degree of anonymity.
3.5 Privacy concern
When interacting with other members in the social network community, people are also
worried about their privacy. Privacy concerns refer to the concerns about losing privacy
after the disclosure of information (Xu, Dinev, Smith, & Hart, 2008). Privacy is not a
big concern in information systems that are used within a small range of closed
environment, such as an organization, but it has turned into an increasingly serious issue
for online users (Ku et al., 2013). For example, in e-commerce, companies offer
personalized services to their customers (e.g. recommendations of products) based on
the behaviors of customers and the personal information they provided (Awad &
Krishnan, 2006). This makes the customers worried about their privacy. They are afraid
that their information might be misused or leaked to unauthorized third parties.
Previous studies suggested that the social network sites users are also concerned about
their privacy (Ku et al., 2013). When people join social network sites, they start by
creating their profile, which contains a list of identifying information, such as name,
photographs, address, email etc. Adding others as friends gives them access to the
profile. And when interacting with friends, the users will inevitably post some private
information. Social network platform providers monitor and record all the interactions
between users, and retain them for further use in data mining (Dwyer, Hiltz, & Passerini,
2007). As more and more users reveal personal information in social network sites,
there is a heated debate on the privacy issues of social network sites. For example, the
News Feed feature of Facebook has received criticisms from many users, because their
information is presented to all “friends”. The updates can be seen by everyone. The
default mode of News Feed is to present all information public, which causes the
privacy concerns of users (Hoadley, Xu, Lee, & Rosson, 2010).
In social network communities, members with high level of privacy concern are
prevention-focused (i.e., they prevent the negative outcome from happening). Their
behaviors are oriented to make sure their privacy is protected. If people perceive that
their privacy is not well protected when using the services in social network platforms,
they will feel reluctant to continue using it (Ku et al., 2013). Therefore, they may get
less information from others in turn and make fewer friends, decreasing their
satisfaction towards the social network community. To better protect their private
information, individuals can re-create a virtual identity to hide their important real
information, such as name. The re-created identity which contains less important
information can mitigate individuals’ perception of risk. When people feel under
protection and safe, they will be more relaxed in communications, which makes the
experience more satisfying. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H5a. Privacy concern is negatively associated with an individual’s satisfaction in
participating in the social network community.
H5b. Anonymity (achieved by identity re-creation) will moderate the effect of privacy
concern on social network community satisfaction, such that the effect will be weaker
among people with higher degree of anonymity.
22
3.6 Risk aversion
Hofstede and Bond (1984) defined risk aversion as “the extent to which people feel
threatened by ambiguous situations, and have created beliefs and institutions that try to
avoid these (p.419).” People who are highly risk averse usually feel threatened by
ambiguous situations, and tend to avoid risk and uncertainty (Hofstede, 1991).
Shimp and Bearden (1982) suggested that risk aversion significantly influences
customers’ decision making. Customers with high risk aversion are inclined to regard
new products as risky, since the quality and performance of new products are more
uncertain to them than old products and brands (Steenkamp, Hofstede, & Wedel, 1999).
They usually stay away from new products and services until other’s experience suggest
that the new products are worth trying. (Bao, Zhou, & Su, 2003).
The situation is similar in social network communities. For high risk-averse members,
they are prevention-focused, and their goal is to stay away from uncertainty and risk.
They may consider the interactions with strangers are risky, so that, they are cautious
when communicating with other new members, and try to avoid the situations that may
get them into trouble. The attempt to avert possible losses may make the individuals
more concerned about their privacy. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H6: Risk aversion is positively associated with privacy concern.
23
4 Research Methodology
In this chapter, the methodologies of this study are introduced. The measurements of
constructs are developed based on existing research. A pilot study was conducted to
examine the reliability of measurements. The research site of this study is QQ
communities. The method of stratified sampling was adopted when collecting data for
the main study (distinguished from pilot study).
4.1 Measurement development
The items measuring the various constructs in the research model were developed based
on existing literatures.
Specifically, vanity was assessed with four items adapted from the research of
Netemeyer et al. (1995). These items measured individuals’ achievement concern (e.g.,
I want others to look up to me because of my accomplishments.) (Netemeyer et al.,
1995).
The four items for disinhibition were developed based on Denollet (2005), Stunkard and
Messick (1985) and Bond et al. (2001). These items focus on the freedom to talk in
social network communities (e.g., in the social network community, it feels so good to
talk with any restraint; I just can't seem to stop).
The three items measuring enjoyment were adapted from Agarwal and Karahanna
(2000), focusing on the feeling of enjoyment members obtain in social network
communities (e.g., Participating in the social network community provides me with a lot
of enjoyment).
Bridging social capital was measured with three items adapted from Williams (2006).
The items were altered to fit the context of social network community. Individuals’
beliefs about the chance to meet new friends were assessed (e.g., Participation in this
social network community gives me a lot of opportunities to create valuable social ties
outside of the physical world around me).
Three items were adapted from Son and Kim (2008) to measure members’ concern
about privacy in the social network community (e.g., I am very concerned about
providing personal information to social network community, because it could be used
in a way I did not foresee).
Risk aversion was assessed with three items developed based on Bao et al. (2003).
These items focus on individuals’ intension to try new Internet services (e.g., I would
rather stick with the Internet service I usually use than try some online services I am not
very sure of).
Finally, the dependent variable – satisfaction – was measured with three items adapted
from Wixom and Todd (2005) and McKinney et al. (2002). The overall satisfaction
about social network community was assessed (e.g., All things considered, I am very
satisfied with this social network community).
24
The degree of agreement or disagreement with the survey items was normalized by a
seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree). Respondents
indicate their answer by choosing the number that can best present their belief. To make
the questionnaire more readable and easier to understand, the survey items were
grouped in the questionnaire. Since the target group of this study is the members in QQ
communities, the items were carefully translated from English to Chinese, and back
translated into English. After comparing the two versions of items several times, the
discrepancies were resolved. Backward translation ensures the consistency between
items (Mullen, 1995; Singh, 1995).
4.2 Pilot study
Considering some of the constructs have seldom been validated in the context of
information technology (e.g., vanity and risk aversion), a pilot study was conducted to
assess the quality of the items, such as contextual relevance, logical consistencies,
sequence of items and easy of understanding.
Twenty-five master students were involved in the pilot study. The students come from
different countries, such as China, Finland and so on. Chinese students answered the
Chinese version of questionnaire, and non-Chinese students answered the English
version of questionnaire. Since most non-Chinese students have never used QQ, the
questionnaire for the pilot study was designed to fit the context of online communities
which are quite similar with social network communities. The result of the pilot study
was only used to refine survey items, and was not included into the final results. The
involvement of Chinese and non-Chinese students assessed the consistency between
Chinese and English items again. The result of pilot study is shown in Table 1.
Given that the sample size of the pilot study is very small (only 25), some loadings (such as
0.38, 0.36, 0, and 0.48) are very low. The low loadings do not mean that the relevant items
should be dropt given the small sample size of the pilot study. But the items with low factor
loadings are refined. For example, the initial wording of the fourth item for disinhibition (factor
loading 0.36) was not proper: “I cannot speak dirty words in the physical world, but in the social
network community I can talk dirty as I wish”. Most people don’t speak dirty either offline or
online. Thus, the item was revised as: “There is no need to worry about others' evaluation when
talking in the social network community”.
The comments and suggestions collected from these students led to some other minor
modifications about wording. Some Chinese items that may cause misunderstanding
were revised. The refined items were then used in the final questionnaire (see Appendix
A) to collect data for this study. Table 2 shows the survey items.
25
Table 1. PLS item factor loadings and cross-loadings of pilot study
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Vanity
Vanity1 0.38 0.29 0.16 0.02 -0.13 0.05 -0.07 0.10
Vanity2 0.85 0.19 0.29 0.13 -0.34 0.09 0.12 0.31
Vanity3 0.67 0.14 0.06 -0.13 -0.09 0.22 0.03 0.15
Vanity4 0.81 0.12 0.36 0.17 -0.20 -0.04 0.05 0.08
2. Disinhibition
Disinbi1 0.22 0.00 0.26 0.04 -0.51 -0.07 0.10 -0.04
Disinbi2 0.12 0.86 0.06 0.21 0.16 -0.16 -0.12 -0.21
Disinbi3 0.14 0.74 0.18 0.27 0.14 -0.30 -0.06 -0.13
Disinbi4 0.24 0.36 -0.16 -0.19 -0.20 -0.18 -0.06 -0.39
3. Enjoyment
Enjoy1 0.22 -0.08 0.94 0.42 -0.21 0.03 0.67 0.34
Enjoy2 0.24 -0.20 0.96 0.50 -0.39 0.14 0.79 0.33
Enjoy3 0.41 -0.05 0.93 0.63 -0.21 0.16 0.70 0.37
4. Bridge Social Capital
BSC1 0.18 0.14 0.47 0.87 -0.06 0.08 0.45 0.08
BSC2 0.14 0.08 0.49 0.81 0.15 -0.04 0.38 0.16
BSC3 -0.38 0.16 0.07 0.48 0.34 -0.02 0.09 -0.26
5. Privacy Concern
PC1 -0.25 0.44 -0.33 0.10 0.98 -0.31 -0.51 -0.17
PC2 -0.37 0.21 -0.18 0.05 0.90 0.01 -0.22 -0.03
PC3 -0.47 0.32 -0.16 0.03 0.78 0.10 -0.18 -0.25
6. Risk Aversion
RA1 0.09 0.09 0.20 0.28 -0.01 0.49 0.37 0.04
RA2 0.17 -0.24 0.20 0.05 -0.19 0.90 0.31 0.11
RA3 -0.04 -0.19 -0.03 -0.04 -0.15 0.83 0.42 0.17
7. Satisfaction
Satis1 0.12 -0.14 0.66 0.33 -0.37 0.50 0.88 0.14
Satis2 0.18 -0.17 0.67 0.55 -0.25 0.36 0.86 0.24
Satis3 0.14 -0.17 0.66 0.37 -0.49 0.24 0.86 0.35
8. Anonymity
Anony1 0.19 -0.39 0.38 0.13 -0.09 0.05 0.25 0.95
Anony2 0.34 -0.23 0.32 0.07 -0.21 0.24 0.29 0.96
26
Table 2. Survey items
Construct Item Item Wording
Vanity
(Netemeyer, Burton, &
Lichtenstein, 1995)
Vanity1 Personal achievements are an obsession with me.
Vanity2 I want others to look up to me because of my
accomplishments.
Vanity3 I am more concerned with personal success than many
people I know.
Vanity4 Achieving greater success than my peers is important
to me.
Disinhibition
(Denollet, 2005; Stunkard
& Messick 1985; Bond et
al., 2001)
Disinbi1 In the social network community, I can talk about
anything I want, including something sensitive.
Disinbi2 In the social network community, it feels so good to
talk with any restraint. I just can't seem to stop.
Disinbi3 When I fell blue, angry, or anxious, I freely release my
negative emotions in the social network community.
Disinbi4 There is no need to worry about others' evaluation
when talking in the social network community.
Enjoyment
(Agarwal & Karahanna,
2000)
Enjoy1 Participating in the social network community
provides me with a lot of enjoyment.
Enjoy2 I have fun interacting with people in the social
network community.
Enjoy3 I enjoy myself in the social network community.
Bridge Social Capital
(Williams, 2006)
BSC1
Participation in this social network community gives
me a lot of opportunities to create valuable social ties
outside of the physical world around me.
BSC2 In this social network community, I can make friends
with knowledgeable people.
BSC3 In the social network community, I always encounter
people with background different from mine.
27
Table 2. Survey items (continued)
Construct Item Item Wording
Privacy Concern
(Son & Kim, 2008)
PC1 I am very concerned that the information I submit to the
social network community could be misused.
PC2 I am very concerned that a person can find private
information about me on the internet.
PC3
I am very concerned about providing personal
information to social network community, because it
could be used in a way I did not foresee.
Risk Aversion
(Bao, Zhou, & Su, 2003)
RA1 I am cautious in trying new internet service or
applications.
RA2 I would rather stick with the internet service I usually
use than try some online services I am not very sure of.
RA3 I rarely use an internet service I don’t know about at the
risk of making a mistake.
Satisfaction
(Wixom & Todd, 2005;
McKinney, Yoon, &
Zahedi, 2002)
Satis1 All things considered, I am very satisfied with this
social network community.
Satis2 Overall, my interactions within this social network
community are very satisfying.
Satis3 Participating in this social network community made me
contented.
Anonymity
(Qian & Scott, 2007)
Anony1
When you participate in this social network community,
what name do you use for yourself? (Please only pick
one that you use primarily.)
I remain totally anonymous (no name, no personal
information at all);
I use an obvious pseudonym (e.g., empty-bottle or
cat lover);
I use a non-obvious pseudonym (e.g., John Philips,
which sounds like a real name but is not your real
name);
I use a partial real name (like your real first name, or
last name, or initials only);
I use my full real name;
I use my full real name, and also reveal further
personal info (like age, location, job etc.).
Anony2
To what extent do you think you are anonymous in this
social network community? (Note: 1 means totally
anonymous; 7 means totally identifiable)
28
4.3 Research site
QQ was chosen as the research site of this paper. It launched in 1999 by Tencent
Company. From 1999 to 2009, the number of registered QQ user accounts increased
rapidly (see Figure 4). By June 2000, shortly after its launch, QQ got 10 million
registered users. And in the following years, it developed sharply. The number of
registered user accounts reached 256 million in 2003, and it doubled in 2006. By the
second quarter of 2009, the total registered QQ user account rushed to 990 million
(Tencent roadmap, 2013).
Figure 4. Total registered QQ user accounts (million) (qq.com)
However, users may abandon their accounts after registration, therefor, monthly active
users, which refer to the users who have logged in to QQ during the last thirty days, can
better describe the popularity of QQ. According to the newest announcement, the
monthly active users of QQ reached 808 million by the fourth quarter of 2013, growing
12 percent from last two years (Tencent announces, 2014).
Within QQ, people can create and join different groups and communities to interact and
communicate with others. Similar with most social network platforms, the user profile
within QQ groups and communities are constructed based on user’s own decision. The
system will not validate the information provided by the user, both real information or
fake information can be included into the profile. Thus, users can create their identity in
QQ communities freely. Figure 5 shows a game community in QQ. There are 914
members in the community, and 434 members are online. As shown in the chatting area,
some member uses a penguin as his/her portrait, and uses numbers as name, and some
member’s portrait is a picture of the sky, while some others’ name includes the symbol
of star. No one uses his/her real name or real picture in the QQ community.
29
Figure 5. A game community in QQ
4.4 Data collection
Before sending out the questionnaire for data collection, the sampling method needs to
be decided. A sample is a selection of elements from a population. It is used to make
statements about the whole population (Blaikie, 2003). There are two kinds of samples:
probability sample and non-probability sample. Probability sample gives every element
an equal chance of being selected. The chance is not equal in non-probability sample
(Walonick, 2000). General rule for samples is the bigger the better. However, increasing
the sample size is subject to the “law” of diminishing returns. Decisions about sample
sizes depend on how widely dispersed are the population characteristics, risks of
making an incorrect estimation and the sampling method (Blaikie, 2003).
4.4.1 Sampling method
There are many kinds of sampling methods, such as random sampling, systematic
sampling, and stratified sampling and so on (Walonick, 2000). Simple random sampling
involves a selection process that gives every possible sample of an equal chance of
being selected. Every element of the population has to be identified and numbered. But
when the sample size is very large, it is difficult to identify all the possible samples
(Blaikie, 2003). Therefore, the sample may be biased. Systematic sampling has a system
for choosing randomness (Walonick, 2000), such as select the phone number ends with
7 from a phone book. Stratified sampling is a combination of simple random sampling
and systematic sampling. The samples share at least one common characteristic.
Online member / Total member
Member list Portrait
Message
Name
Chatting area
30
Researchers first identify the relevant stratums and their characteristics in the population.
Then conduct simple random sampling to select sufficient number of subjects.
Convenience sampling is a non-probability method, and is often used in
preliminary exploratory research (Walonick, 2000; Blaikie, 2003). Researcher could get
an approximation of the truth without spending a lot of time and efforts on sampling.
They can select samples that are convenient to them, such as their friends. Judgment
sampling is an extension of convenient sampling. Researchers select the sample based
on their own judgment. But they must be confident that the chosen sample can represent
the entire subject population (Blaikie, 2003). Quota sampling is a non-probability
method that is similar with stratified sampling, but convenience sampling or judgment
sampling is used instead of simple random sampling after the relevant stratums of
sample are identified. Snowball sampling can be used when the desired sample
characteristic is rare or hard to find. It begins by identifying the initial subjects that meet
the criteria, and then, ask them to recommend possible subjects that also meet the
criteria from the persons they know(Walonick, 2000).
4.4.2 Sample demographic
The convenience sampling was used in pilot study mentioned above. The students
involved are the friends or classmates of the author. In the main study (distinguished
from the pilot study), from which the main conclusions are drawn,
convenience sampling was also adopted as the sampling method. First of all, the target
population of this study is the members of QQ communities, and the common
characteristics of these communities are that the size of the community is large, and the
members can join or quit freely. Therefore, several communities were selected, such as
game communities, travel communities, car communities and so on. Then, the link for
questionnaire was posted in the communities to call for respondents randomly.
Everybody in the communities can answer the questionnaire if they want. The
respondents were asked to choose one specific social network community, which they
participate most frequently, to answer the questionnaire. Finally, 96 usable
questionnaires were collected. Table 3 presents the sample characteristics of the main
study.
Table 3. Sample characteristics of main study
Variable Category Frequency (%)
Gender Male 50 (52.1%)
Female 46 (47.9%)
Age
< 18 1 (1.0%)
18-24 65 (66.7%)
25-29 19 (19.8%)
>= 30 10 (11.5%)
Work experience
< 1 51 (53.1%)
1-2 years 16 (16.7%)
3-5 years 18 (18.7%)
> 5 years 11 (11.5%)
31
Table 3. Sample characteristics of main study (continued)
Variable Category Frequency (%)
Tenure in one specific social
network community
< 1 year 6 (6.3%)
1-2 years 56 (58.3%)
3-4 years 19 (19.8%)
> 4 years 15 (15.6%)
Time spend in one specific social
network community (hour/week)
< 1 hour 16 (16.7%)
1-2 hours 41 (42.7%)
3-4 hours 15 (15.6%)
> 4 hours 24 (25.0%)
Level of expertise about the topics
discussed in the specific social
network community
Novice 23 (23.9%)
Talented 25 (26.0%)
Intermediate 30 (31.3%)
Advanced 12 (12.5%)
Expert 6 (6.3%)
As shown in the sample demographic, most of the respondents have been in their social
network community for over one year, and most of them spend more than one hour on
the community per week. They also have confidence about their expertise in the social
network community.
32
5 Results
In this chapter, the method for data analysis is introduced, and the results are interpreted
in detail with both measurement model and structural model.
Partial least squares (PLS) were used to test the model. PLS is a modeling technique
that is capable to assess the reliability and validity of construct measures, and test the
relationships among the constructs at the same time (Wold, 1982). PLS is widely used
in IS research to analyze complex models with multiple constructs and different
interaction effects (Ahuja, Galletta, & Carley, 2003; Chin & Todd, 1995; Sambamurthy
& Chin, 1994).
The model in this study is complex, including six main hypotheses and several
hypotheses for moderating effects. Therefore, PLS is appropriate. The PLS analysis
includes two stages: i) assess the reliability and validity of the measurement model; ii)
assess the structural model. The software – SmartPLS 2.0 – was used to assess both the
measurement model and structural model (Ringle, Wende, & Will,.2005).
5.1 Measurement model
Table 4 and Table 5 present the measurement model results. Table 4 shows the
descriptive statistics, composite reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, correlations of constructs,
and square root of AVE values of the main study. Table 5 illustrates the factor loadings
and cross-loadings.
Convergent validity
The convergent validity of the constructs was examined in the first place. The average
variance extracted (AVE) is an important indicator of convergent validity. The AVE
indicates the amount of variance that a latent variable component captured from its
indicators compared with the amount accounted for by measurement error (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). The AVE value has to exceed the generally recognized standard: 0.50
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As shown in Table 4, the AVE values are all greater than
0.50, ranging from 0.61 (for disinhibition) to 0.82 (for enjoyment). For example, the
AVE value "0.61" for disinhibition indicates that 61 percent of the variance of the latent
variable (disinhibition) is accounted for by its indicators.
Internal validity
Internal consistency reflects how well the items that are used to measure the same
construct can produce similar results. It can be calculated by the composite reliability
(Werts, Linn, & Joreskog, 1974) and Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1971). The generally
acceptable value of composite reliability is 0.70 or greater (Fornell & Larcker, 1981),
while the recommended value for a Cronbach’s alpha is also 0.70 or greater (Gefen et al.
2000; Nunnally, 1976). As shown in Table 4, the value of composite reliability range
from 0.85 (for bridging social capital) to 0.93 (for enjoyment), and the value of
Cronbach’s alpha range from 0.74 (for bridging social capital) to 0.89 (for enjoyment),
all exceeding the recommended value.
33
Table 4. Descriptive statistics, composite reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, correlations of constructs, and square root of AVE values of main study from PLS
Construct Mean CR CA AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.Vanity 3.59 0.91 0.87 0.71 0.84
2. Disinhibition 3.43 0.86 0.81 0.61 0.47 0.78
3. Enjoyment 4.67 0.93 0.89 0.82 0.17 0.17 0.90
4. Bridge Social
Capital 4.41 0.85 0.74 0.65 0.28 0.16 0.51 0.81
5. Privacy
Concern 4.66 0.91 0.85 0.76 0.02 -0.24 -0.11 0.11 0.87
6. Risk Aversion 3.86 0.88 0.79 0.70 0.20 0.08 0.01 0.21 0.26 0.84
7. Satisfaction 4.35 0.90 0.83 0.75 0.28 0.37 0.57 0.57 -0.14 0.09 0.87
8. Anonymity 2.71 0.90 0.78 0.82 0.15 0.04 0.29 0.22 -0.04 -0.05 0.27 0.90
Notes: 1. CR: Composite reliability, CA: Cronbach’s alpha,
2. The diagonal elements (in bold) are the square root of AVEs and off-diagonal elements are correlations.
Discriminant validity
Discriminant validity reflects whether given constructs are different from each other. To
assess discriminant validity, the square root of AVE may be compared with the
correlations among the latent variables (Chin, 1998). For all the constructs, the square
root of AVE is greater than the construct’s correlations with other constructs,
demonstrating discriminant validity.
Additionally, the items measuring different constructs should also be distinct, which
means the items should achieve high loadings to the construct they are measuring and
the cross-loadings with items for other constructs should be low (Chin, 1998; Barclay,
Higgins, Thompson, 1995). As shown in Table 5, the factor loadings for the items are
much higher than cross-loadings, indicating that the more variance is shared between
the measures their own construct than with other constructs. The convergent and
discriminant validity are both adequate.
34
Table 5. PLS item factor loadings and cross-loadings of main study
Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Vanity
Vanity1 0.78 0.42 0.14 0.21 -0.07 0.15 0.16 0.16
Vanity2 0.88 0.38 0.09 0.22 0.03 0.21 0.26 0.07
Vanity3 0.90 0.45 0.15 0.25 0.01 0.18 0.29 0.18
Vanity4 0.82 0.33 0.21 0.29 0.06 0.14 0.21 0.09
2. Disinhibition
Disinbi1 0.27 0.82 0.18 0.11 -0.19 0.07 0.36 0.06
Disinbi2 0.46 0.87 0.12 0.15 -0.21 0.08 0.35 0.07
Disinbi3 0.43 0.78 0.13 0.17 -0.21 -0.02 0.20 -0.03
Disinbi4 0.53 0.63 0.00 -0.02 -0.10 0.30 0.06 -0.09
3. Enjoyment
Enjoy1 0.12 0.09 0.87 0.47 -0.11 -0.02 0.46 0.32
Enjoy2 0.17 0.20 0.93 0.41 -0.18 0.00 0.51 0.29
Enjoy3 0.16 0.16 0.91 0.51 -0.02 0.05 0.57 0.20
4. Bridge Social Capital
BSC1 0.41 0.22 0.39 0.79 0.06 0.29 0.41 0.14
BSC2 0.13 0.04 0.52 0.87 0.09 0.13 0.52 0.29
BSC3 0.18 0.14 0.32 0.77 0.13 0.11 0.43 0.08
5. Privacy Concern
PC1 0.04 -0.14 -0.16 0.04 0.83 0.15 -0.22 -0.04
PC2 0.02 -0.27 -0.08 0.13 0.94 0.28 -0.12 0.00
PC3 -0.03 -0.19 -0.06 0.12 0.85 0.23 -0.03 -0.07
6. Risk Aversion
RA1 0.20 0.11 0.09 0.29 0.19 0.81 0.17 -0.06
RA2 0.15 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.25 0.89 0.05 0.01
RA3 0.16 0.07 -0.05 0.13 0.20 0.81 0.02 -0.09
7. Satisfaction
Satis1 0.16 0.23 0.56 0.53 -0.07 0.09 0.89 0.19
Satis2 0.28 0.30 0.43 0.58 -0.12 0.14 0.88 0.28
Satis3 0.29 0.45 0.49 0.36 -0.18 0.00 0.83 0.23
8. Anonymity
Anony1 0.08 0.03 0.23 0.23 -0.05 -0.15 0.25 0.91
Anony2 0.19 0.05 0.31 0.17 -0.01 0.07 0.23 0.90
35
5.2 Structural model
Main hypotheses (H1a, H2a, H3a, H4a, H5a and H6) were also tested with PLS. Figure
6 shows the results of PLS structural model, including the standardized path coefficients,
significance, and variance explained (R2) (also see Table 6). The moderating effects
(H1b, H2b, H3b, H4b and H5b) were tested following the PLS product-indicator
approach proposed by Chin et al. (2003).
Not as predicted, the relationship between vanity and user satisfaction in social network
community is not significant; therefore, H1a is not supported. H2a (predicting the
positive relationship between disinhibition and an individual’s satisfaction in the social
network community) is supported (β = 0.24, p < 0.05). H3a is also supported (β = 0.31,
p < 0.01), indicating that enjoyment users obtain is also positively associated with their
satisfaction in social network communities. The link between bridging social capital and
satisfaction is significant (β = 0.36, p < 0.01), supporting H4b. However, H5a is not
supported. Additionally, H6 is supported (β = 0.26, p < 0.05), suggesting that the level
of risk aversion is positively related to users’ privacy concern.
However, all the proposed moderating effects are not supported. Typically, moderation
effects are very difficult to detect in field studies, which requires a large sample size
(Chin, Marcolin, & Newsted, 2003). This may explain why the moderation effects are
not supported given the small sample size of this study.
Figure 6. PLS result of research model
Prevention-focused
Promotion-focused
Satisfaction
R2 = 0.51
Vanity
Disinhibition
Risk Aversion
Bridging
Social Capital
Enjoyment
Privacy
Concern
0.00ns
0.24*
0.31**
0.36**
-0.09ns
0.26*
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, ns: nonsignificant
36
Tab
le 6
. R
esu
lts o
f H
yp
oth
eses testin
g (
ma
in e
ffects
)
Hy
poth
eses
No
t su
ppo
rted
Su
pp
ort
ed
Su
pp
ort
ed
Su
pp
ort
ed
No
t su
ppo
rted
Su
pp
ort
ed
Sig
nif
ica
nce
Lev
el
p >
0.0
5
p <
0.0
5
p
< 0
.01
p <
0.0
1
p >
0.0
5
p <
0.0
5
T-S
tati
stic
0.0
2
2.5
8
2.9
4
3.0
1
0.8
9
2.1
3
Sta
nd
ard
ized
Coef
fici
ent
0.0
0
0.2
4
0.3
1
0.3
6
-0.0
9
0.2
6
Str
uct
ura
l P
ath
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Pri
vac
y C
once
rn
Van
ity
Dis
inh
ibit
ion
En
joym
ent
Bri
dg
e so
cial
cap
ital
Pri
vac
y C
once
rn
Ris
k A
ver
sion
H1
a:
H2
a:
H3
a:
H4
a:
H5
a:
H6
:
37
6 Discussion
This study has investigated the factors that are associated with people’s satisfaction in
social network communities based on two theories (regulatory focus theory and self-
discrepancy theory). The results provide support for most of the main effects
hypothesized. For example, the results indicated that the feeling of disinhibition is an
important predictor of user satisfaction in social network communities. In other words,
disinhibition is a promotion-focused goal. By achieving the goal, people can approach
pleasure in cyberspace (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Therefore, individuals are motivated to
express themselves freely and openly in social network communities. When people are
able to behave and represent themselves without restraints, they tend to feel more
satisfied.
In addition, the results also support the positive relationship between enjoyment and
social network community satisfaction. Consistent with research on social network sites,
enjoyment was suggested as the most significant predictor for the behavior of users
(Sledgianowski & Kulviwat, 2009). It is also an important motivator for users’
participation in social network sites (Lin & Lu, 2011). To meet the goal of gaining
enjoyment, individuals are promotion-focused (Higgins, 1997, 1998). They are oriented
to do things that can bring them pleasure, such as interacting with humorous people in
the social network community.
Moreover, the results suggest that bridging social capital plays a vital role in building
users’ satisfaction. With the increase of social capital, individuals can gain various
positive outcomes which may help them to approach pleasure. This founding is in line
with previous research about social capital in social network sites. They suggested that
perceived bridging social capital significantly influences user satisfaction in cyberspace
(Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2011). The results of the study also suggest that people
with high level of risk aversion are more concerned about their privacy. Drawing on
regulatory focus theory, they are prevention-focused. To achieve the minimum goal of
protecting their privacy, high risk aversion individuals try to lower the risks by
conducting prevention-focused behaviors to avoid pain (Higgins, 1997, 1998), such as
withhold personal information when communicating with others in the social network
community.
Not as expected, the relationship between vanity and members’ satisfaction proved to be
non-significant. The association between privacy concern and satisfaction is also not
supported, not align with previous studies which suggested privacy concern is
negatively associated with users’ continuance intention to social network sites (Ku et al.,
2013). One potential explanation for these two unsupported hypotheses is that, the
sample size of this study is not large enough to validate these two relationships.
6.1 Contributions to literature
The current study contributes to literature in several ways. First, this study uses the
regulatory focus theory to frame the positive and negative outcomes associating with
members’ satisfaction with the social network community. The regulatory focus theory
has never been used in prior studies on social network communities before. Second,
vanity, a construct from economic domain was introduced when investigating user
38
satisfaction toward social network communities. Also, risk aversion was proposed,
tested, and confirmed to have a direct relationship with privacy concern. The adoption
of new constructs and new theory provides new perspectives on the phenomenon. In
addition, the link between disinhibition and social network community satisfaction
further interprets the online disinhibition effect proposed by Suler (2005).
6.2 Implications for practice
The findings of this study also have implications for practice. Understanding that
disinhibition is positively associated with social network community satisfaction, the
service providers are suggested to employ functions that frees members from social
pressures, so that the members can freely express themselves. The effect of enjoyment
and bridging social capital also indicates possible solutions to improve members’
satisfaction in social network communities, such as develop functions that make the
interactions more interesting, and help members to make new friends.
6.3 Limitations and future research
It should be noted that this study has some limitations. The results are limited by the
small size of sample. Considering the difficulty to collect data from volunteers,
rewarding mechanism (e.g., small gifts) could be taken into account in future research.
Additionally, the type of the social network community may have influence. For
example, the level of vanity may be higher for members in car community than
members in IT professional community.
More future research could be done about the relationship between vanity and user
satisfaction. It would also be interesting to explore the influence of social network
community type. Furthermore, more other positive and negative outcomes could be
investigated, such as information seeking and belongingness mentioned above.
39
7 Conclusion
This study has investigated the factors that are associated with members’ satisfaction in
the social network communities. Regulatory focus theory is used to frame the factors
(i.e., positive outcomes and negative outcomes) investigated in this study. Self-
discrepancy theory is used as a complementary theory to help explain each factor in-
depth. The findings suggest a positive relationship between disinhibition and members’
satisfaction in social network communities. The gain of enjoyment and bridging social
capital are also associated with user satisfaction positively. Moreover, the results
indicate that risk aversion is a predictor of users’ privacy concern. This study makes
important contributions to literature and has implications for practice.
40
References
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new
concept. Academy of management review, 27(1), 17-40.
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive
absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS quarterly, 24(4).
Ahuja, M., Galletta, D., and Carley, K.( 2003) “Individual Centrality and Performance
in Virtual R&D Groups: An Empirical Study,” Management Science(49:1), pp. 21-
38.
Altheide, D. L. (2000). Identity and the Definition of the Situation in a Mass‐ Mediated
Context. Symbolic Interaction, 23(1), 1-27.
Awad, N. F., & Krishnan, M. S. (2006). The Personalization Privacy Paradox: An
Empirical Evaluation of Information Transparency and the Willingness to be
Profiled Online for Personalization. MIS quarterly, 30(1).
Bao, Y., Zhou, K. Z., & Su, C. (2003). Face consciousness and risk aversion: Do they
affect consumer decision‐ making?. Psychology & Marketing, 20(8), 733-755.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS)
approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration.
Technology studies, 2(2), 285-309.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3),
497.
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of
Consumer research, 12(3), 265.
Blaikie, N. (2003). Analyzing quantitative data: From description to explanation. Sage.
Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications
studies.Communication research, 6(1), 9-36.
Bond, M. J., McDowell, A. J., & Wilkinson, J. Y. (2001). The measurement of dietary r
estraint, disinhibition and hunger: an examination of the factor structure of the Thre
e Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ). International Journal of Obesity & Related
Metabolic Disorders, 25(6).
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Handbook of theory and research for the
sociology of education, 241, 258.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2012). Social network sites. Online Communication and
Collaboration: A Reader.
Bowlby, J. (1969).Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
41
Brendl, C. M., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Principles of judging valence: What makes
events positive or negative?. Advances in experimental social psychology, 28, 95-
160.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the
study of emotions at work. Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 86(1), 35-66.
Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organisational learning and communities of practice:
Towards a unified view of working, learning and innovating. Organisational
Science, 2, 40-57.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.
Modern methods for business research, 295(2), 295-336.
Chin, W., Marcolin, B., and Newsted, P. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable
modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo
simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information
Systems Research, 14, 2 , 189-217.
Chin, W. W., and Todd, P. A. (1995). “On the Use, Usefulness, and Ease of Use of
Structural Equation Modeling in MIS Research: A Note of Caution,” MIS
Quarterly(19:2), pp. 237-246.
Chiu, C. M., Cheng, H. L., Huang, H. Y., & Chen, C. F. (2013). Exploring individuals’
subjective well-being and loyalty towards social network sites from the perspective
of network externalities: The Facebook case.International Journal of Information
Management.
Colby, K. M. (1967). Computer simulation of change in personal belief
systems. Behavioral Science, 12(3), 248-253.
Cooley, C. H. (1992). “Human nature and the social order”. Transaction Publishers.
Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. Educational measurement, 2, 443-507.
Cyr, D., Head, M., & Ivanov, A. (2009). Perceived interactivity leading to e-loyalty:
Development of a model for cognitive–affective user responses. International
journal of human-computer studies, 67(10), 850-869.
Delone, W. H., & Mclean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information
systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of management information
systems, 19(4), 9-30.
Denollet, J. (2005). DS14: standard assessment of negative affectivity, social inhibition,
and Type D personality. Psychosomatic medicine, 67(1), 89-97.
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of
consumer participation in network-and small-group-based virtual
communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 241-263.
Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007, August). Trust and Privacy Concern
Within Social Networking Sites: A Comparison of Facebook and MySpace.
In AMCIS (p. 339).
42
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital
implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices.New Media &
Society, 13(6), 873-892.
eMarketer. (2013). Social Networking Reaches Nearly One in Four Around the World.
Available at: http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Social-Networking-Reaches-
Nearly-One-Four-Around-World/1009976
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research
(JMR), 18(1).
Freud, S. (1961). The ego and the id. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard
edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol.19, pp.3-66).
London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1923)
Gefen, D., Straub, D., Boudreau, M.C., 2000. Structural equation modelling and
regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for
Information System 4(7), 2-77.
Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P.
V. Mardsen & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105-130).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Herring, S. C. (1995, October). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated
communication. In Computerization and controversy (2nd ed.) (pp. 476-489).
Academic Press, Inc..
Higgins, E.T. (1983). Manuscript in preparation, New York University.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52,1280-
1300.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational
principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol.
30, pp. 1–46). New York: Academic Press.
Higgins, E. T., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1985). Self-concept discrepancy theory: A
psychological model for distinguishing among different aspects of depression and
anxiety. Social cognition, 3(1), 51-76.
Higgins, E. T, Strauman, T, & Klein, R. (1986). Standards and the process of self-
evaluation: Multiple affects from multiple stages. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T.
Higgins (Eds.), Hand book of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social
behavior (pp.23-63).New York: Guilford PressHoadley, C. M., Xu, H., Lee, J. J., &
Rosson, M. B. (2010). Privacy as information access and illusory control: The case
of the Facebook News Feed privacy outcry. Electronic commerce research and
applications, 9(1), 50-60.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
43
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independent
validation using Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15,
417 – 433.
Iacono, W. G., Carlson, S. R., Taylor, J., Elkins, I. J., & McGue, M. (1999). Behavioral
disinhibition and the development of substance-use disorders: Findings from the
Minnesota Twin Family Study.Development and Psychopathology, 11, 869–900.
James, W. (1948). Psychology. New York: World. (Original work published 1890)
Jin, X. L., Lee, M. K., & Cheung, C. M. (2010). Predicting continuance in online
communities: model development and empirical test. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 29(4), 383-394.
Johnson, D. G., & Miller, K. (1998). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and inescapable
identity on the net. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 28(2), 37–38
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and
compatibility. The American economic review, 75(3), 424-440.
Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2007). Express yourself: Culture and the effect of self-
expression on choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 1–11.
Krebs, D., & Adinolfi, A. A. (1975). Physical attractiveness, social relations, and
personality style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 245.
Ku, Y. C., Chen, R., & Zhang, H. (2013). Why do users continue using social
networking sites? An exploratory study of members in the United States and
Taiwan. Information & Management, 50(7), 571-581.
Larsen, R., & Buss, D. (2009). Personality psychology: domains of knowledge about
human nature. (4th ed., p. 388).
Lin, C. P., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2008). Elucidating individual intention to use
interactive information technologies: The role of network externalities.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13, 85–108
Lin, H. F., & Lee, G. G. (2006). Determinants of success for online communities: an
empirical study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(6), 479-488.
Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical
study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(3), 1152-1161.
Lin, N., Cook, K. S., & Burt, R. S. (2001). Social capital: theory and research.
Transaction Publishers.
Markus H, Nurius P. Possible sevles[J]. American psychologist, 1986, 41(9): 954.
Maslow, A. (1955). Deficiency motivation and growth motivation. In M. Jones
(Ed.),Nebraska symposium on motivation(Vol. 3, pp. 1–30). Lincoln: Univ. of
Nebraska Press.
44
McKinney, V., Yoon, K., & Zahedi, F. M. (2002). The measurement of web-customer
satisfaction: an expectation and disconfirmation approach.Information systems
research, 13(3), 296-315.
Mullen, M. R. (1995). Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national
research. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 573-573.
Netemeyer, Richard G., Scot Burton, and Donald R. Lichtenstein. "Trait aspects of
vanity: measurement and relevance to consumer behavior." Journal of consumer
research (1995): 612-626.
Nunnally, J.C (1976), Psychometric theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pinsonneault, A., & Heppel, N. (1997). Anonymity in group support systems research:
A new conceptualization, measure, and contingency framework.Journal of
Management Information Systems, 14(3), 89-108.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of
democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Qian, H., & Scott, C. R. (2007). Anonymity and Self‐Disclosure on Weblogs.Journal
of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1428-1451.
Raney, A. A. (2003). Disposition-based theories of enjoyment.Communication and
emotion: Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann, 61-84.
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism
and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of consumer
research.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will A. (2005). SmartPLS Version 2.0 M2,
www.smartpls.de.
Rogers, C. R. (1960).A therapist’s views of personal goals. Wallingford: Pendle Hill.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Ruyter, D. D., & Conroy, J. (2002). The formation of identity: The importance of ideals.
Oxford Review of Education, 28, 509–522
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video
games: A self-determination theory approach.Motivation and Emotion,30(4), 344–
360.
Sambamurthy, V., & Chin, W. W. (1994). The Effects of Group Attitudes Toward
Alternative GDSS Designs on the Decision‐making Performance of Computer‐Supported Groups*. Decision Sciences, 25(2), 215-241.
Schafer, R. (1974). Problems in Freud's psychology of women. Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association.
Scholer, A.A., and Higgins, E.T. (2008). Distinguishing levels of approach and
avoidance: An analysis using regulatory focus theory. In A.J. Elliot (ed.),
45
Handbook of Approach and Avoidance Motivation. New york: Psychology Press,
pp. 489–503
Schouten, J. W. (1991). Personal rites of passage and the reconstruction of self.
Advances in Consumer Research, 18(2), 49-51
Shimp, T. A., & Bearden, W. O. (1982). Warranty and other extrinsic cue effects on
consumers’ risk perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 38 – 46.
Singh, J. (1995). Measurement issues in cross-national research. Journal of International
Business Studies, 26, 597–619
Sledgianowski, D., & Kulviwat, S. (2009). Using social network sites: The effects of
playfulness, critical mass and trust in a hedonic context. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 49, 74–83
Solomon, M. R. (1992). Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being, Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Son, J. Y., & Kim, S. S. (2008). Internet users' information privacy-protective
responses: A taxonomy and a nomological model. Mis Quarterly, 503-529.
Statista. (2014). Number of monthly active Facebook users worldwide from 3rd quarter
2008 to 4th quarter 2013 (in millions). Available at:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-
users-worldwide/
Steenkamp, J. E. M., Hofstede, F., & Wedel, M. (1999). A cross-national investigation
into the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness.
Journal of Marketing, 63, 55 – 69
Stunkard, A. J., & Messick, S. (1985). The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure
dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger. Journal of psychosomatic research, 29(1)
, 71-83.
Suler, J. (2005). The online disinhibition effect. International Journal of Applied
Psychoanalytic Studies, 2(2), 184-188.
Tencent announces. (2014). 2013 Fourth quarter and annual results. Available at:
http://www.qq.com/
Tencent roadmap. (2013). Available at: http://www.qq.com/
Van den Bos, K., Van Lange, P. A., Lind, E. A., Venhoeven, L. A., Beudeker, D. A.,
Cramwinckel, F. M., ... & van der Laan, J. (2011). On the benign qualities of
behavioral disinhibition: Because of the prosocial nature of people, behavioral
disinhibition can weaken pleasure with getting more than you deserve. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 101(4), 791.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS
quarterly, 695-704.
Walonick, D. S. (2000). Survival Statistic. StatPac, Incorporated.
46
WeAreSocial Singapore. (2014). Global Digital Statistics 2014. Available at:
http://www.slideshare.net/wearesocialsg
Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1974). Intraclass reliability estimates:
testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological measurement, 34(1),
25-33.
Williams, D. (2006). On and off the’Net: Scales for social capital in an online
era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 593-628.
Williams, R. (1988). Reflections on anonymity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67(3),
763-766.
Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and
technology acceptance. Information systems research,16(1), 85-102.
Wold, H. (1982). “Systems Under Indirect Observation Using PLS,” in A Second
Generation of Multivariate Analysis,C. Fornell (Ed.), Praeger, New York, pp. 325-
347.
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical.
synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27(2), 151-208.
Wylie, R. C. (1979). The self-concept: Theory and research on selected topics (Vol. 2).
U of Nebraska Press.
Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, H. J., & Hart, P. (2008). Examining the Formation of
Individual's Privacy Concerns: Toward an Integrative View. ICIS 2008
Proceedings, 6.
Zillmann, D., & Vorderer, P. (Eds.). (2000). Media entertainment: The psychology of its
appeal. Routledge.
47
Appendix A Questionnaire
Questionnaire about social network community
Thank you for participating in this study. The participation of this survey is anonymous.
Only summarized data will be reported in research.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors that influence users’ perception of
satisfaction in participating in social network communities. Social network communities
are online spaces where a group of individuals come together around a common interest
and share their own ideas among themselves without time and space constraints, just
like some online forums. Members in the social network community share the same
interest. They can ask/answer questions, and help each other solve problems.
The following questions ask you about your thoughts and feelings in regards to your
experience in a social network community. Please keep this community in mind and
respond to each of the following questions by checking the option that best describes the
first response that comes to your mind. There is no right or wrong answers.
When you participate in this social network community, what name do you use for
yourself? (Please only pick one that you use primarily.)
I remain totally anonymous (no name, no personal information at all);
I use an obvious pseudonym (e.g., empty-bottle or cat lover);
I use a non-obvious pseudonym (e.g., John Philips, which sounds like a real name but is not
your real name);
I use a partial real name (like your real first name, or last name, or initials only);
I use my full real name;
I use my full real name, and also reveal further personal info (like age, location, job etc.).
To what extent do you think you are anonymous in this social network community? (Note:
1 means totally anonymous; 7 means totally identifiable)
1 (totally anonymous) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (totally identifiable)
How many years have you been a member of this social network community? year(s)
On average, how many hours per week do you spend in this social network community?
_______hour(s)
Please indicate your level of expertise in this social network community:
1 (Novice) 2 (Talented) 3 (Intermediate) 4 (Advanced) 5 (Expert)
48
Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. There is no right or
wrong answer. Circle the numbers that best present your attitude:
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Slightly
Disagree Neutral
Slightly
Agree Agree Strongly
Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disinhibition
In the social network community, I can talk about anything I want,
including something sensitive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In the social network community, it feels so good to talk with any restraint.
I just can't seem to stop. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
When I fell blue, angry, or anxious, I freely release my negative emotions
in the social network community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
There is no need to worry about others' evaluation when talking in the
social network community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vanity
Personal achievements are an obsession with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I want others to look up to me because of my accomplishments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am more concerned with personal success than many people I know. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Achieving greater success than my peers is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Risk Aversion
I am cautious in trying new Internet service or applications. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would rather stick with the Internet service I usually use than try some
online services I am not very sure of. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I rarely use an Internet service I don’t know about at the risk of making a
mistake. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bridging Social Capital
Participation in this social network community gives me a lot of
opportunities to create valuable social ties outside of the physical world
around me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In this social network community, I can make friends with knowledgeable
people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In the social network community, I always encounter people with
background different from mine. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Satisfaction in the Social Network Community
All things considered, I am very satisfied with this social network
community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Overall, my interactions within this social network community are very
satisfying. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Participating in this social network community made me contented.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
49
Privacy Concern
I am very concerned that the information I submit to the social network
community could be misused. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am very concerned that a person can find private information about me on
the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am very concerned about providing personal information to social network
community, because it could be used in a way I did not foresee. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Enjoyment
Participating in the social network community provides me with a lot of
enjoyment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I have fun interacting with people in the social network community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I enjoy myself in the social network community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Your gender: Male Female
How old are you?
Under 18 18-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44
45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+
What is your highest education level obtained?
Primary school or lower Secondary school High school Vocational/Technical
Junior College Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree Doctoral degree or above
Your working field: _________________.
Years of experience in your field: ____ year(s)
Thank you for your participation!
